Nelson v. Central Metropolitan Bank

Defendant appeals from an order denying its motion for a new trial. There was a motion for amended findings of fact, a motion for amended conclusions of law, and a motion for judgment in favor of the defendant, all included in the same motion papers. As the court’s order denying the three last mentioned motions is not appealable, we have for consideration only the order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial.

Prior to June, 1925, plaintiff had purchased from defendant bank a number of notes and the real estate mortgages on lands in Montana and North Dakota securing same. In June, 1925,…